Chennai Court October 1956 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: M. Vaidyanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad432
Rajamannar, C.J. 1. Though Mr. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, took a great deal of our time, he was unable to convince us that the judgment of Rajagopalan J. against which this appeal has been filed is wrong. 2. The point which was. strenuously pressed upon us was that the investigation by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.T.D., Madras Was barred by the provisions of Section 282-A of the Indian Companies Act of 1913, corresponding to Section 630 of Act I of 1956. The investigation Is being made in respect of alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. We have no hesitation in holding that offences under these sections are Different from the offence contemplated under Section 282-A of the Indian Companies Act. 1913. There can be no bar therefore to the investigation. Section 282-A, in our opinion^ 'relates to an offence much less serious than an offence under Section 406 or 408 or 477A of the Indian Penal Code. This ...
Sadasivam Vs. State of Madras, by the Asst. Inspector Labour X Circle, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad144; 1957CriLJ374; (1957)ILLJ524Mad
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision preferred against the conviction and sentence by the learned Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, in C. C. No. 11265 of 195,5.2. The facts are The petitioner M. Sadasivam is the proprietor of a hair-dressing saloon. Under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter called the Act) he had specified Monday as the Weekly holiday for the saloon and had exhibited a notice to that effect in the saloon. 'On 26-9-1955 which was a Monday he was found running the 'saloon and serving customers with' the assistance of 12 persons. Therefore, be had been prosecuted and convicted under Section 45(1) of the Act for contravening the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Act.3. The case for the revision petitioner was two-fold. First of all, that he had applied to Government that he was going to work on a shift system arid that the shop would not be: wholly closed on any day and that, he proposed to give each worker a complete holiday every we...
T. Kunhi Raman Vs. Poothevi Illath Madhavan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: (1957)2MLJ28
Pankhapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one T. Kunhi Raman, the judgment-debtor in E.P.No. 31 of 1954 and a pensioned Deputy Nazir, to revise and set aside the order of the District Munsif of Kuthuparamba, North Malabar, directing his arrest by 16th July, 1955, ex parte in respect of a decree for a sum of Rs. 160 in favour of the petitioner in the E.P. (Respondent here). I have perused the entire records and heard Achuthan Nambiar the learned Counsel for the petitioner and N.R. Sesha Ayyar the learned Counsel for the decree-holder-respondent.2. Mr. Sesha Ayyar raised a preliminary objection that a civil revision petition would not lie to this Court and only an appeal would lie to the District Court, North Malabar, in view of the observations of a Bench of this Court in Ponnappa Reddi v. Thiruvengadam Pillai and Co., Mr. Achuthan Nambiar strenuously disputes this, and says that the observations in that Bench judgment will not apply to an order for arrest contravening the mandator...
T. Kunhiraman Vs. Pootheri Illath Madhavan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1956
Reported in: AIR1957Mad761
ORDERPanchapakesa Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by one T. Kunhi. Raman, the judgment-debtor in E. P. No. 31 of 1954 and a pensioned Deputy Nazir, to revise and set aside the order of the District Munsif of Kuthuparamba, North Malabar, directing his arrest by 16th July 1955 ex parte in respect of a decree for a sum of Rs. 160 in favour of the Petitioner in the E. P. (respondent here). I have perused the entire records and heard Mr. Achuthan Nambiar the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. R. Sesha Aiyar learned counsel for the decree-holder respondent2. Mr. Sesha Aiyar raised a preliminary objection that a civil revision petition would not lie to this court, and only an appeal would lie to the District Court, North Malabar, in view of the observations of a Bench of this court in Ponnappa Reddi v. Thiruvengadam Pillai, 49 MLJ 104: AIR 1925 Mad 1179 (A). Mr, Achuthan Nambiar strenuously disputes this, and says that the observations in that Bench judgment will not apply to an ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›